Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

The Map is not the Territory. The Map is not the Territory. The Map is not the Territory. The Map is not the Territory. The Map is not the Territory. The Map is not the Territory. The Map is not the Territory. The Map is not the Territory. The Map is not the Territory. The Map is not the Territory. The Map is not the Territory. The Map is not the Territory. Repeat twelve billion times.

It used to be a nice little saying until it got captured and raped and sold in little pieces. Somewhere along the way, the meaning was lost. I mean, it's a nice little saying, but when it is used in an argument for objective reality, I'm likely to get a headache (I have).

So let's get real, shall we? (Yeah.) "The Map is not the Territory" is a cheap rip-off from the old zen proverb that one should not confuse the finger pointing to the moon with the moon itself. "Yup, " you say, " Got that. It means that a concept is not the real thing. The word "moon" is not the moon, and the moon is not the word "moon". The moon is not a concept. The moon is a big sphere floating in space."

Well, my friend, you are staring at just another finger.

Congratulations if you got it. Otherwise, read the quote at the end of buttonion's posts. If you still don't get it, look for a long time at the icon I posted this under. Believe me, you will get it.

-------------------- Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein

Well, you did not address buttonion's reference to Goedel yet (take your time). The Incompleteness Theorem says that for every axiomatic system , there are true assertions for which there is no proof. Now, logic itself is an axiomatic system. The three axioms are:

1. Nothing can be both true and false.

2. The truth table of NOT.

3. The truth table of either NAND or NOR.

Therefore, there are things which are logically true, but cannot be proven by logic. And yes, that can be proven.

I wonder how Aristotle feels in his grave. Pythagoras was a lucky man, he got killed in his lifetime. To kill Aristotle, it took two thousand years of mathematics. Rationalism in the west is a sad story, isn't it? Everyone who made a major contribution was either proven wrong or became insane (speaking of Pythagoras, the guy was completely nuts). And then there's Goedel, the greatest logician of all times, who believed that his food was poisoned, refused to eat, and starved. You gotta love logic.

Hardly, rationalism is alive and well. But aren't you conflating rationalism with realism?

Everyone who made a major contribution was either proven wrong or became insane (speaking of Pythagoras, the guy was completely nuts). And then there's Goedel, the greatest logician of all times, who believed that his food was poisoned, refused to eat, and starved.

Hyperbole won't get you very far I'm afraid (but then again I frighten easily ). And Shirley you know that ad homs are yet another example of an irrelevant phallacy.

Bottom line is I asked for empirical proof and you don't have any. I suspected as much.

I must say I am extremely impressed with your knowledge of philosophy/logic. Most idealists are ignorant of both subjects. But nevermind me we're not sure I exist.

What, is zen and logic exclusive? The buddha was so obsessed with logical conclusions that a lot of the sutras are practically unreadable. They'll bore you to death. But the buddha never thought that he could find truth by means of logic. He used it as a tool to point people to their own truth. You cannot use a wrench to unscrew truth, can you?

Depends, a fool despises reproof but a wise man welcomes it. And THAT makes him decidedly unlucky.

Yes, but a chance is all you can ever hope for. Lucky is he who gets one.

But aren't you conflating rationalism with realism?

Don't think so. Rationalism being the attitude displayed by someone who demands proof for something which questions the validity of logic itself. If every premise is false, what could you possibly conclude? (Everything.)

And Shirley you know that ad homs are yet another example of an irrelevant phallacy.

No ad hom involved. I know the difference between an argument and a rant. You do, too.

Bottom line is I asked for empirical proof and you don't have any.

Yes, but you missed the point. You said that if I didn't have proof, I am "barking up the wrong tree". That implies that something which cannot be proven is wrong. That implication is false and I can prove it.

I must say I am extremely impressed with your knowledge of philosophy/logic. Most idealists are ignorant of both subjects.

Yes, sir. But then again, most realists don't dig Terence McKenna. Nothing but respect for you.